Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Room C1, 1st Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London, E14 2BG
Contact: Angus Taylor, Democratic Services Tel: 020 7364 4333 E-mail: angus.taylor@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
COUNCILLOR ANN JACKSON (CHAIR) IN THE CHAIR |
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies for absence were received on behalf of: · Councillor Rachael Saunders (Vice- Chair and Scrutiny Lead Adult Health and Wellbeing). · Councillor Stephanie Eaton (Scrutiny Lead Communities Localities and Culture). · Councillor Sirajul Islam (Scrutiny Lead Development & Renewal). · Councillor Fozol Miah.
· Apologies for lateness were received on behalf of Councillor Amy Whitelock (Scrutiny Lead Children, Schools and Families). . Noted |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 56 KB To note any declarations of interest made by Members, including those restricting Members from voting on the questions detailed in Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act, 1992. See attached note from the Monitoring Officer. Minutes: No declarations of interest were made.
|
|
UNRESTRICTED MINUTES PDF 111 KB To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the unrestricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 5 February 2013. Minutes: The Chair informed OSC members that the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, held on 18th February 2013 had been Tabled, a copy of which would be interleaved with the minutes.
The Chair Moved and it was:-
Resolved
1. That the unrestricted minutes of the ordinary meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, held on 5th February 2013, be agreed as a correct record of the proceedings, and the Chair be authorised to sign them accordingly.
2. That the unrestricted minutes of the extraordinary meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee, held on 18th February 2013, be agreed as a correct record of the proceedings, and the Chair be authorised to sign them accordingly.
Action by: Angus Taylor (Principal Committee Officer, Democratic Services, CE’s)
|
|
REQUESTS TO SUBMIT PETITIONS To be notified at the meeting. Minutes: There were no petitions.
|
|
UNRESTRICTED REPORTS 'CALLED IN' No decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet (13 February) 2013 in respect of unrestricted reports on the agenda were ‘called in’. Minutes: No decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet on 13th February 2013 had been “called in”.
|
|
REQUEST FOR DEPUTATION To be notified at the meeting. Minutes: There were no deputations.
|
|
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION |
|
Gambling Policy 2012 -2017 PDF 98 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Ohid Ahmed, Deputy Mayor, introduced, and highlighted key points, in the report including: - · The statutory requirement for the Council to review and adopt its ‘gambling policy’ at this point. · Stakeholder consultation undertaken to date and revision of the proposals to reflect this. Consultation with OSC under the Budget and Policy Framework contained in the Council’s Constitution, was an element of this. · Prescriptive guidance from Government which limited the scope for changing the Policy to meet local aspirations. Andy Bamber, Service Head Safer Communities and David Tolley, Head of Consumer and Business Regulations, were also in attendance for this item.
A discussion followed which focused on clarification being sought and given on the following points:- · Given the number of licenced gambling outlets known to exist in the borough (mapped in the Policy documents) and the known saturation point for these, where could new outlets be permitted and what was the potential for a saturation policy. Clarified that the Council was not able to limit the number of gaming establishments under the Gambling Act, and a saturation policy was only possible in relation to licensing of premises for alcohol under the Licensing Act. Only the 3 Licensing objectives could be taken into consideration when determining an application. The Gambling Policy was not a strategic document on controlling gambling provision, but set out how applications would be dealt with. · The London view regarding the Policy and Central Government prescriptions for the Policy. Clarified that the Council had lobbied Parliament against the lack of any powers for local councils to restrict gambling establishments. · The number and nature of responses to consultation to date. Four of limited value, but Councillor feedback had resulted in the addition to the Policy of the Best Practice Guide. · The concerns raised by the Licensing Committee, as part of the consultation process, which had been reflected in the proposed Policy. Consideration that future reports consulting OSC on policy framework proposals should detail any concerns raised during stakeholder consultation and how/ where these were addressed in the proposals recommended to the Mayor/ Cabinet for endorsement and onward recommendation to full Council. · The impact of gambling on the community and in particular the linkage between gambling and domestic violence, and whether a related evidence base, perhaps provided through a scrutiny review in 2013/14, could prove valuable in assisting the Council in efforts to control the proliferation of gambling establishments. Clarified that there was an acknowledged impact on vulnerable people and a link with domestic violence and the Council aspired to identify a way to limit gambling outlets to mitigate this. · Whether there could be increased focus on ‘self – exclusion’ mechanisms by individuals that knew they had a gambling addiction. How more responsibility could be placed on gambling outlets to identify these individuals and assist them to make an informed choice. How to prevent their movement from one outlet to another to get around this mechanism. Clarified set out in the Best Practice Guide and managed through the Safe Betting ... view the full minutes text for item 7.1 |
|
Asset Management and Value for Money Scrutiny Review PDF 127 KB Minutes: Adam Walther, Strategy Policy and Performance Officer, introduced and highlighted key points in the report, which provided a progress update on implementation of the recommendations contained in the Scrutiny Review Working Group report “Asset Management and Value for Money Scrutiny Review” of May 2012. Ann Sutcliffe, Service Head Strategic Property, Abdul J Khan, Sustainable Development Manager, and Katie Gent, Environmental Sustainability Officer, were also in attendance for this item.
A discussion followed which focused on clarification being sought and given on the following points:- · Whether all surplus Council buildings were classed as ‘community assets’, whether the community could bid for these if declared surplus, and the number of lets to community groups since buildings had been declared surplus or the number of surplus buildings classed as a community building and available to let. Rights under the Community Right to Buy element of the Localism Act and consideration that there was a need for improved clarity of policy around this. No community assets had been declared surplus, a list of bids to be provided in writing. The provisions of the Localism Act were currently being worked through and Community Right to Buy bids received to date had been supported by the Council. · Given complaints from community groups previously in relation to the transparency of the disposal of surplus buildings (examples of Old Poplar Town Hall and Limehouse Library what steps were being taken to ensure future transparency. Clarified: The disposal process agreed by Cabinet in 2010 was adhered to and Officers considered this to be robust and transparent. The examples cited were marketed by external agents and disposed for greater value than their initial valuation, thereby achieving value for money for the Council in accordance with ‘Red Book Valuation’. o What action was being taken to ensure surplus/ under-utilised buildings were made available for use by community groups, and that information on how to achieve this was transparent and readily available. How small niche community groups could be supported by the Council with prohibitive hire fees. Also what measures were in place to ensure that, where it was not beneficial for the Council to repair or refurbish derelict buildings but demolition was not appropriate because of their historical value, that the buildings did not remain derelict for lengthy periods but were put back to use. Clarified that work was underway to map Council buildings tagged for community use in conjunction with partners with a view to consolidating use of assets and thereby releasing some. A more flexible lease structure for such groups would also be examined to facilitate self-sufficiency. · Given the need to work with developers to upgrade assets and the move to a Corporate Landlord Model, with the next step of closer control of work undertaken on behalf of the Council, what steps were being taken to ensure that the health and environmental impacts of development and development materials were taken full account of through the Council’s procurement process. Was a Corporate statement on usage of sustainable and safe materials ... view the full minutes text for item 7.2 |
|
Strategic Performance and Corporate Revenue and Capital Budget Monitoring Q3 2012/13 PDF 213 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor Alibor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources, introduced, and highlighted key points, in the monitoring report which detailed the financial position of the Council at the end of Quarter 3 2012/13 compared to budget, and service performance against targets. Chris Holme, Acting Corporate Director Resources, and Louise Russell, Service Head Corporate Strategy and Equalities, were also in attendance for this item.
A discussion followed which focused on clarification being sought and given on the following points:- · The reported reduction of income by £1 million due to reduced Housing Benefit subsidy as a result of new systems at the DWP. Clarification, and what steps the council was taking to ensure it was not picking up the bill for DWP efficiency: Changes to DWP computer system had resulted in a more efficient ‘real time’ assessment of those entitled to benefit, including those coming out of benefit. In the past there had been a short time lag and local councils had been entitled to retain a proportion of the benefit subsidy for that period. All local council’s had budgeted for this and were similarly affected. · What the impact of the ‘real time’ DWP assessment system was on HB claimant [Reduced income]. Whether the Council was being forced to penalise HB claimants due to out of date DWP records and the lost benefit would not be reimbursed by the DWP as previously discussed. Written response to be provided on latter. · The reported underspend of £518k in Children, Schools and Families and whether this would be reinvested in the directorate or used to offset other overspends/ reduced income. The first responsibility was to balance the budget by offsetting overspends with underspends, however any additional resource beyond that was transferred to reserves for a future decision on usage. · The reported identification of performance for “Crime – rate of violence with injury” as a risk, and in particular the rise in Domestic Violence (DV) which was attributed to changes in the method of recording not levels of occurrence. Concern was expressed that the same explanation had been given the previous year and if the crime rate in this area had risen again there must be more/new incidents of DV. Written response to be provided. · The reference to a provisional figure of 34% of carers receiving a care assessment or review with finalised data available in February 2013. Finalised data to be provided. · Noting the dip in performance for “Homelessness prevention through casework intervention” based on Q2 performance and the reference to Q3 outturn being available in late February, Q3 data to be provided with a more detailed analysis of performance and casework. · With reference to the reported reduction of 529 in JSA claimants from December 2011 to December 2012 what the impact of this was on employment rates. The overall employment rate was reported as 62% but more specific detail to be provided in writing. · Further information requested on Tower Hamlets Work Programme outcomes: more detailed DWP information including numbers securing employment. · Noting the reported underspend for ... view the full minutes text for item 7.3 |
|
Faith Buildings Support Scheme - Verbal Report Minutes: Councillor Alibor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources, gave a short oral report which provide an overview of the Community Faith Buildings Support Scheme (‘the Scheme’) and highlighted related key points including: the nature/ objectives of the scheme, process/ timescales, criteria and assessment/ decision making process for grant funding under the scheme, and progress to date. Dave Clark, Acting Service Head Resources – Development and Renewal, was also in attendance for this item.
A discussion followed which focused on the following points:- · Dr Rice, Church of England Diocese Representative, whilst welcoming the direction of travel for Round 1 of the Scheme, sought clarification as to lessons learned for Round 2, and relayed concern expressed in the faith community regarding governance of the scheme and historic/ heritage aspects to it. Historic or heritage endowed buildings resulted in a slower application process due to the number of specialists and commissions involved, and there was a perception that the timeline for the scheme was too rushed to accommodate this, and as a result faith organisations such as the Church of England who had a lot of such buildings felt disadvantaged. Councillor Choudhury, Cabinet Member for Resources, responded that the scheme was not rushed but reflected consideration given so that it delivered for all. The Scheme comprised of 2 rounds and different streams and the bidding round for Type B applications, which were those of greater complexity or cost (£75-300k) had been delayed to accommodate such concerns. The Council had endeavoured to accommodate the administrative process for all faiths. Officers added that the Type C application stream aimed to support those organisations needing to obtain specialist advice and prepare complex detailed proposals for capital costs. Type A and C applications were well subscribed to by churches. · Clarification sought and given as to the timeline for decisions on Round 1 applications for FBSS grant [March/ April 2013]. Consideration also that once the decisions had been made it would be helpful to see a list of applications and an analysis of the amounts given by faith group, community group and geographical location. An anonymised analysis of type A and C applications to be provided. · Concern expressed regarding the transparency of the information around the Scheme and the steps taken to publicise it. Clarification sought and given as to where information about the scheme could be accessed. Consideration that transparency regarding the scoring of Round 1 applications would be beneficial for all in Round 2.There had been a scheme launch and feature in East End Life and details had been communicated to 800 stakeholders through the “GIFTs” system. The narrative/ process were on the Council website with the Third Sector Team available to respond to queries. · In the context of a further £1 million of funding being allocated to the Scheme within the Council’s recently agreed 2013/14 Budget, clarification sought on Scheme timescales and funding criteria (the requirements for refurbishment and community service delivery associated with grant). Eligibility criteria were set out in the Cabinet report approving ... view the full minutes text for item 7.4 |
|
PRE-DECISION SCRUTINY OF SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED CABINET PAPERS To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.
(Time allocated – 30 minutes). Minutes: No pre-decision questions submitted to the Mayor in Cabinet [13 March 2013].
|
|
VERBAL UPDATES FROM SCRUTINY LEADS
Scrutiny Review - Post-16 attainment Cllr Whitelock · 2 review group meetings held: Ø Useful meeting on post 16 attainment stats compared to the national average and other local authorities and the underlying reasons for poor performance compared to GCSE. Ø Meeting on the academic choices made by young people and current practice at Camden and Hackney. Initial finding emerging that independent advice be provided in school but not necessarily by teachers and parents engaged early and well before the point of GSCE. · A site visit to engage with students and headteachers, a focus group with young people, and a concluding session to distil recommendations were yet to be held.
Scrutiny - Chief Executive’s Cllr Archer Noting savings for East End Life contained in the 2013/14 Budget, recently set by full Council, consideration that a meeting with Officers was required to ensure OSC had oversight of intended measures to implement the savings and monitor progress. Sarah Barr, Senior SPP Officer to action.
Scrutiny Review - Removing the barriers to youth and graduate employment- Cllr Jackson
· A meeting had been held with all stakeholders that contributed to a young person’s plan to secure education/ employment. A finding emerging throughout the review was that much activity was focused on the objective, but partner working was not joined up and communication with young people needed improvement. · A visit to Skills Match was still intended to inform recommendations. The support for ‘looked after’ children leaving school would be reviewed as it appeared funding had been reduced and the Council’s performance was slipping.
The Chair Moved and it was:-
Resolved
That the verbal updates be noted.
|
|
ANY OTHER SECTION ONE (UNRESTRICTED) BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT To consider any other unrestricted business that the Chair considers to be urgent. Minutes: None.
|
|
EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC In view of the contents of the remaining items on the agenda the Committee is recommended to adopt the following motion:
“That, under the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contains information defined as Exempt in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act, 1972.”
EXEMPT SECTION (Pink Papers)
The exempt committee papers in the agenda will contain information, which is commercially, legally or personally sensitive and should not be divulged to third parties. If you do not wish to retain these papers after the meeting, please hand them to the Committee Officer present. Minutes: The Chair Moved and it was: -
Resolved:
That in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the consideration of the Section Two business on the grounds that it contained information defined as exempt or confidential in Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government, Act 1972.
SUMMARY OF EXEMPT PROCEEDINGS
|
|
EXEMPT/ CONFIDENTIAL MINUTES To confirm as a correct record of the proceedings the restricted minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 5 February 2013.
Minutes: Minutes of ordinary OSC 5th February 2013 approved. |
|
SECTION TWO REPORTS 'CALLED IN' No decisions of the Mayor in Cabinet (13 February 2013) in respect of exempt/confidential reports on the agenda were ‘called in’. Minutes: Nil items
|
|
PRE-DECISION SCRUTINY OF SECTION TWO (RESTRICTED) CABINET PAPERS To consider and agree pre-decision scrutiny questions/comments to be presented to Cabinet.
(Time allocated 15 minutes) Minutes: Nil items.
|
|
ANY OTHER SECTION TWO (RESTRICTED) BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR CONSIDERS URGENT To consider any other exempt/ confidential business that the Chair consider to be urgent. Minutes: Nil items.
|